While not a fan of “sound bite” debate, the phrase used by Presidential hopeful Barack Obama to characterize Hilary Clinton, his opponent for the nomination, resonates with me. Obama referred to Clinton as the “say anything” candidate. He was responding to or reflecting upon the increasingly shrill and slimy rhetoric used by the Clinton campaign to gain or try to maintain a lead in the polls going into the Pennsylvania primary contest.
Most recently, Clinton went on national TV to pander to talking head Keith Olberman and elaborate on her remarks during the last debate. Responding to a hypothetical question during the debate, Clinton said that she would use "massive retaliation" in the event of an Iranian attack on Israel. Now keep in mind that there is no impending attack or even a credible threat of an attack by Iran on Israel at the moment. So this discussion is totally hypothetical and abject political campaign sophistry. A sensible leader would have left standing the carefully considered reply made in the debate to a dubious question. But Clinton’s desperation to appeal to the fears and anxieties of the Pennsylvania electorate led her to seek out a media opportunity to elaborate on her statement. To Olberman she stated that, if Israel were subjected to a nuclear attack by Iran, the US would respond with the nuclear option. Aside from the vestiges of “Dr. No” in the tenor of the Clinton Campaign rhetoric, there are at least a couple of glaring problems with her latest tactic.
First, what the country really needs right now is a leader who will not quickly rise to irresponsible and hawkish rhetoric. Clinton, even if the initiative were coming from the press instead of her press agent, could have FIRST emphasized that all possible diplomatic measures would be undertaken to prevent a situation in which such an attack by Iran would even be considered a realistic option. Instead, Clinton opted for the guns a’ blazing style of cowboy rhetoric that the current administration is known for using to mobilize right wing support and scare the rest of the electorate.
Second, the measured and responsible statesman and leader that we need in the White House would not be lured into declaring specific optional responses to hypothetical conjectures. As Obama stated, he would not rule out any option for responding to a critical situation involving the US or its allies and interests. The proper response would be considered and measured against the actual situation or circumstances. That type of response is not weak or waffling. It shows instead that the leader is willing to make tough decisions, but is not willing to be goaded into false bravado and irresponsible speculation.
Unfortunately, Clinton’s tactics display more clearly than before why she may well be the lesser qualified candidate to actually occupy the White House. Clinton and her campaign will apparently say anything to try to gain an edge. Her campaign is running ads that are designed to suggest [to the lesser educated public] that there is some connection between Obama and Osama Bin Laden, and that Clinton would stand up to the Muslim terrorist leader while Obama might not. This tactic, of course, is one we might expect from extreme right wing groups trying to imply that Obama is a Muslim [which he is not]. This is about the lowest Clinton has stooped since her debacle of denigrating Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the accomplishments of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's , prior to the South Carolina and Alabama nominating contests. Her desperation suggests that she may be the more adept mudslinging and deceitful campaigner. But those traits are the opposite of the character that the country needs so badly in the leadership position as President of the United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment